Idaho news. (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1887-1891, 1887-11-05
THE SEVEN CONDEMNED.
Argument Before the Unifed states
supreme Cours in Thetr Rsehatf.

WASHINGTON, Oct 2T.-Anuclpatlon
Of the argument before tie United States
supreme court to-day upon the petition for
a writ of error in the Chicago anarchists
case attracted to the capitol large crowd
of people who seemed eager to gain ad-
mission to the court room, as if the an
archists were to be present to argue their
own cases in person. More than an hour
before court assembled the court room was
denssly packed with people, who not only
occupied all the seats provided for specta-
tors, but encroached upon the precincts OF
the bar, and stood in closely packed
throngs in the open spaces ON each side of
the door. Even out in the corridor there
was crowd eudeavoring to get a glimpse
of the interior of the court room through
the entrance.
Shortly after l o'clock the chief justice
said each side would be allowed three
hours, and that Grinnell might speak
j. Randolph Tucker opened the argu-
ment in support Of the petition for writ
of error. He said that it was not necessary
for him to show as condition precedent
to the granting of the writ that the action
complained of in the court below was
actually repugnant to or in violation of
the constitution. 1t was only necessary to
show that conflict had arisen, that there
was question whether the action COM
planned Of was not repugnant to the con-
stitution. That was enough to give that
court jurisdiction. 1t was the object Of
the statute of 1867 to give free access to
this court in all cases where there was q
question of this kind. 1t was not neces-
sary to show repugnancy, but only con-
fict If there is conflict, then this court
has Jurisdiction, and if it has jurisdiction,
then the petitioners are entitled TO the writ
as right.
This court" said Tucker. sis city Of
refuge from the avenger of blood, and any
man who comes here and takes hold of thu
horns of Justice should not be repulsed.
The policy of this court, he said, had been
to deal literally with the petitions for
writs of error in civil cases. How much
more should it deal literally with petit
ton for writ of error in criminal case
involving the issues of life and death, in q
case where life was about to be taken away
in violation of the constitution
Proceeding then to the merits of the
case, Tucker said 1t was not accessory that
law of state should be absolutely and
on its face unconstitutional, in order to give
this court jurisdiction of the case under it.
If the law was seemingly fair and just on
its face, and it should have put upon it by
the state courts a construction contrary to
the constitution, that was enough to give
| this court jurisdiction. Tucker then re-
viewed the history of the adoption of tn Z
| fourteenth amendment, and said that al
| though it was originally intended to
guarantee particularly the rights o
its enfranchised blacks, there was
no reason why white citizens
should not enjoy the benefits of its provis'
ions. Tucker quoted the fourteenth
amendment and discussed the meaning o.
the words ''due process of law" and said
although it had been held by this court
that trial without indictment by grand
Jury might be ''dde process Of law" anC
might be perfectly constitutional, it had
never been held or intimated that trial by
a petit jury could be dispensed with. Il
seemed, he said, to be everywhere conceded
that ''due process of law required trial by
Jury of ones peers. 1t is essential that thu
Jury should be unbiased, unprejudiced ant
impartial, and that it should not be elias
jury.
Tucker then asserted that this jury Law
of Illinois was unconstitutional in that /
provided that the forming OF an opinion
from reports or from newspaper accounts o
a certain transaction should not necessaril.
disquslify the person having such a
opinion from sitting in Judgment on tina
transaction as as juror. Even althoug
the law might seem to be fair and just,
by construction and administration it were
made to deny to prisoners the right Q
trial by fair and impartial jury, thel
such construction and administration con
stituted law and made it unconstitutional
The construction given to the law in thu
case was different from the constructio
given to it in q large number of othe
cases in the same state. He the
referred to the objections mad
by the defense at the trial to the rulings
the court in the matter of challenges;
the refusal of the court on the motion for
no trial, to hear evidence going to sho'
that the baliff had said that "the men
had selected for the panel would be sure
hang and to various other rulings an
decisions of the trial court, which had II
effect of denying to the prisoners IA
trial by an impartial jury. Turning the
to another question raised by the cas-
! which, he said, was new one in tn
/ court, he quoted the second clause Of Il
, fourteenth amendment, to the effect tn
f'no state shall make or Ell
force any law which shall abrid
the privileges or immunities Of citizens
! the United States" Among the "priyi
! eyes and immunities" thus guaranteed
the fourteenth amendment were, he col
tended, those set forth in the first t
. amendments to the federal constitutio
2 1t has been maintained, he said, that the
4 first ten amendments to the constltutl
were limitations Of federal power only, bl
: it was his belief that unless the privilee
! and immunities were specifically said to
: merely limitations of federal power, tn
. were privileges and immunities Whit
8 came within the puryiew of the fourteen
[ an endmert and were guaranteed by it.
: Chief Justic Waite-Then you won
i | bring all questions TO this court. cam
, conceive Of any question which cannot
brought here if the Fourteenth amendme
/ makes the privileges and immunlties'
| which it refers include all those of the fin
ten amendments.
/, Tucker said he would admit it was
Q new question, but he should like to arg
1 it, "Now, make the assertion
$ said Mr.. Tucker, That the rit
/ to be exempt from unreasonal
: searches and seizures; the rig
t offreedorn of speech: the right Of citiz
l against self-accusatiOn, and the right of
! citizen to be twice tried by jury, al
q secured TO him by virtue Of the constitute
of the United States. Being so, the fou
i tenth amendment comes in and says 4
{ state shall make or enforce any law whiC
; abridges the rights Or privileges of cit
/ zens.'
, Turning TO the action and rulings
' the trial court, Mr.. Tucker said the defen,
were driven to peIemptory challenges
) order to exclude jurors who should hay
been rejected for cause, and that thereb